The general xenophobia that is being expressed in Europe and Malta towards the in-coming migrants can be dated back to the eighteenth century and the start of Atheism as the new religion of the Secular State. It is the direct result of a larger discussion that took place in what, in history, is known as the Age of Reason. This saw the emergence of a new concept of state in Europe. For the first time, the “secular” state started to be associated with population.
This does not mean that population was not taken into consideration in the past. But population was not seen as part of a territorial unit or as an economic problem. The people were seen as subjects of a king or as followers of a religion. When these two concepts started to be questioned in the West, population started to assume a new meaning.
Yet, what is less emphasized is the fact that with these new ideas that were ushered into Europe at the start of the Modern Age, a new body politics came into existence. Europe started to look differently at its population. The concept of the “other” emerged in Europe as a political matrix. Before, the ‘other’ was simply a religious concept. By the eighteenth century, the concept of the ‘other’ was no longer based on religion or the principle of God but on scientific reasoning and eco-centric principles.
Yet, this “new” Age of Reason, which claimed to be based on science, created a new perspective towards the “migrant” in general. For the first time, the migrant started to be seen as an alien or better, as the enemy.
As part of its new hermeneutics of power, the Enlightenment philosophers wanted to devise a state with absolute control over its population. For the first time in history, the economic force related to population started to be seen as a political problem. The wealth of a nation started to be measured according to the wealth of the individuals rather than that of a kingdom or the church. More importantly, population started to be seen in terms of manpower. Michel Foucault spoke in terms of bio-power or bio-politics. Departments of Statistics started to be set up and labour capacity started to be studied. Issues of manpower or labour capacity were not taken into consideration in the arithmetic calculations undertaken prior to the period of the Enlightenment.
The nineteenth century politicians started to speak, for the first time, in terms of population balance. One does not find the presence of this concept prior to the eighteenth century. The idea that there is a relationship between the growth of a country and the resources of the land started to be taken into account. For the first time, European Governments realized that they were not dealing with subjects, as was the case prior to the French Revolution but with “people”, or better still a “population”. In Foucault’s words, populations have their specific phenomena and peculiar variables. Demographers identified these variables as those of birth, and death, life expectancy, fertility, state of health, frequency of illnesses, patterns of diet and habitation.
From the eighteenth century onwards, the new states that started to be formed in Europe devised their population objectives and exigencies on calculated policies aimed an increasing their birth rate. Until the Second World War, big European countries promoted birth policies aimed at an increase in the number of their population. In the Age of the Dictators these policies reached the highest point of endeavour.
States saw, in the population that inhabited their patch of land, a rich resource of power and domination. Those states that had the largest number of people achieved the most successful colonization programmes. But this needed to be accompanied by strong policies of sexual procreation and sexual procreation needed stable families. The family started to feature for the first time in political discourse.
These new population policies affirmed that the future of a state was linked to the uprightness of its citizens. The constant way to achieve this was through a heterogeneous marriage and a family reorganization, supported by the inculcation of a military spirit which the European States sought to instil through conscription.
Ironically, today those seeing in gay and lesbian marriage the extension of some sort of an enlightenment principle of personal freedom are deluding themselves. For the Enlightenment philosophers, these theories of same sex marriage go against the same theories about the human body they were themselves devising. It was the Enlightenment State, which usurped for itself the right to legislate on how its citizens should have sex. The modern state is enforcing more the concept that marriage belongs to its domain. The same holds for the idea that conscription can inculcate in our youths a sense of civic duty; historical reality shows that this is not the case.
It is a great pity that the European Commission Vice President Jyrki Katainen still sees his economic projections in terms of these theories with the result that migration is pictured as a liability rather than an asset. His frame of mind is still tied to the fear generated during the Age of Enlightenment against the concept of the ‘other’. I am saying this as he was reported to have warned that if refugees crossing into the EU are not given employment opportunities, the migration phenomenon currently gripping Europe can become a heavy burden on its economy.
Ironically enough, these arguments reflect the thoughts of a defunct mercantile epoch, where the lex mercatoria, is said to have ruled Europe in the Middle Ages. In fact, Katainen spoke about a stronger equal level playing field in Europe’s economic sector. This is what the lex mercatoria sought to do in the Middle Ages but failed, for like Katainen, medieval merchants viewed the economy as a body without a soul. Unfortunately, Katainen and his colleagues in Brussels are still tied to this medieval concept.
But what about the cultural aspect that the migratory experience can bring to our ageing Continent? Unfortunately, Europe today may claim a strong economic leadership in Germany, but is lacking a cultural beacon. Without a common cultural front, Europe is destined to implode.
Jyrki Katainen and the rest of Europe should stop seeing political power as a sort of personal bliss that can be enjoyed differently by the respective European states. The way he spoke to the Malta Independent indicates that he sees in the world of finance the salvation of Europe. In principle, what he is suggesting is good. In practice, these suggestions lack a cohesive cultural and political policy. His remarks on migration expose the most serious fallacy in his arguments. In the end, only a restricted group will benefit from such thoughts and frustration in Europe will become even greater.
It is useless to speak about common economic policies for all without strengthening the political and cultural sector. In simple words, turn power into a service towards European citizens and stop heeding to pressures germinating in Brussels from sectorial lobbies. As happened with the lex mercatoria, these policies are destined to fail and we risk to repeat the political mistakes done by the nation states. To avoid this from happening, our politicians need to start taking honest decisions and wise apolitical actions.
The vision of Europe as a land of liberation and manifold pleasures is slowly fading away. The reason for this is that we are still envisaging power in the spirit of the Enlightenment. Europe thinks that power can only be enjoyed by those living within restricted circles and inhabiting specific territorial boundaries. This explains why Europe once again, faced with this migratory crisis, is divided in two. Even the recreated concept of a Central Europe is withering away.
As the European dream is fading, Mintoff’s idea of a Europe of Abel and Cain starts to re-emerge again. The reason for this is due to the fact, that our European politicians lack a sound knowledge of history.